M.I.Shihabuddin vs The Secretary on 23 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20732 of 2009(J)


1. M.I.SHIHABUDDIN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.DEEPAK

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :23/07/2009

 O R D E R
                            V.GIRI,J.
                      -------------------------
                 W.P ( C) No. 20732 of 2009
                     --------------------------
                Dated this the 23rd July,2009

                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is operating a stage carriage

vehicle on the route Puttady-Ernakulam, has sought for

revision of his own timings, which, according to him, was

settled in the year 2006. The reasons stated are

apparently, the introduction of new services and change

of circumstances.

2. The application for revision of timings of one’s

own timings will have to be settled in terms of Rule 145(7)

of the Motor Vehicles Rules. If there are special

circumstances, as contemplated by Rule 145(7) of the

Rules, the existence of such special circumstances will

have to be found by the authority. Thus, the authority will

have to consider the request and if he is of the opinion

that there are sufficient reasons and he feels that the

operator’s request merits consideration under Rule 145(7)

of the Rules, then orders shall be passed in this regard

and only thereafter the request for revision of timings

should be boarded at a timing conference.

W.P ( C) No. 20732 of 2009
2

3. Accordingly, the respondent shall first pass an

order on Ext.P2, keeping in mind Rule 145(7) of the Rules

and if the respondent is of the opinion that there are special

circumstances which necessitates consideration of

petitioner’s request for revision of his own timings, an

order shall be passed and such order shall be

communicated to the petitioner and any other operator,

who is in need of a copy. Thereafter, mentioning the

number of the order, the request for revision of timings

made by the petitioner shall be included in a timing

conference and an appropriate decision taken. The

petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard, if

the respondent is not inclined to accept the request of the

petitioner as regards the maintainability of Ext.P2. The

entire process shall be completed within two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No. 20732 of 2009
3

W.P ( C) No. 20732 of 2009
4